Blind Followers, Inconsistencies, Double Standards and More Confusion

Reformed Apologist ^ | December 17, 2012 | Reformed Apologist

[RnMomof7]

Roman Catholics often assert that Protestantism operates under the principle that Scripture is open to private interpretation because Protestants deny the need for an infallible magisterium to interpret Scripture. Is historic Protestantism really a religion of "me and my Bible?" Do the tenets of historical Protestantism really deny 2 Peter 1:20, which informs that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation?

An honest and informed Roman Catholic understands that Protestants do not think that Scripture has no need for an interpreter.

1. An honest and informed Roman Catholic understands and will gladly concede that historic Protestantism affirms that Scripture is the interpreter of Scripture. This is often referred to as the analogy of Scripture.

2. Even for the Roman Catholic, Scripture interprets Scripture with respect to the magisterium's basis for Christian doctrine. In turn the magisterium is to relay its interpretation of Scripture to the laity. Even Marian doctrines are alleged to be derivable from Scripture.

3. Even when a Roman Catholic lay person offers an argument from Scripture, say to reconcile James with Paul, they too operate under the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. At the very least, won’t a Roman Catholic appeal to Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture to derive and offer proof of Rome's doctrine for an infallible magisterium?  Rarely does one find a Roman Catholic assert “the pope has said so and that settles it.”

Roman Catholics not only often impugned Protestantism unjustly; they maintain a double standard while doing so. I am not suggesting ill intent. I'm just pointing out what is commonplace.

More inconsistencies, double standards and confusion

Another common objection levied against the perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture is that since there are so many denominations that hold conflicting views we simply cannot know what Scripture teaches without an infallible magisterium.  An easy refutation of this argument is that Christ held the Jews responsible to know the Scriptures even in spite of the error of the teaching magisterium of his day. Moreover, there is no Old Testament precedent for the need or establishment of an infallible magisterium. In fact, those that would set themselves above Scripture were often to be disregarded utterly and completely. If the New Testament abrogates this principle then it should be demonstrable from Scripture, which of course would undermine the absolute need for an infallible magisterium. In any case, allowing for the premise that Peter was the first pope (and all that entails), how does one reach the grand conclusion of an unbroken lineage of infallible popes that would reside in Rome?

Indeed, the doctrines that exist within the entire set of Protestant denominations cannot all be correct given that contradictory doctrines exist within Protestantism. Yet that’s a far cry from  substantiating the need for an infallible magisterium, especially in light of Old Testament precedence as noted above. Nor do conflicting Protestant denominations imply that Rome has true doctrine.

A Fresh Polemic?

Although in one sense Rome has a greater chance of being correct than any given set of conflicting doctrines, Roman Catholics are not able to argue successfully that Roman Catholicism has any more chance of being correct than any particular denomination that has not contradicted itself. Rome likes to compare herself with the whole of Protestantism rather than with a single Confession that is internally consistent with itself, like the Westminster standards.

Coming at this from a non-Trinitarian unbelieving perspective, we can just as easily lump Roman Catholicism in with all other Trinitarian denominations making the set even more inclusive. Given such a cataloging of Trinitarian denominations and by employing the Roman Catholic's way of reasoning, one may just as easily ask in the spirit of Roman Catholic skepticism how truth can be known given all the opposing doctrines within Trinitarian theology (Roman Catholicism included). In other words, Roman Catholic apologists often point to conflicting doctrines within the whole of Protestantism to create need for Romanism, the supposed arbiter of truth. Yet if we lump Rome in with all the rest of Christianity (and apply her reasoning) then her disagreements with the Westminster standards, for instance, makes her doctrine as questionable as all the Protestant denominations she would cast doubt upon. In response to this Roman Catholics might say that Rome claims infallibility whereas Protestant denominations don't. But how does the claim of infallibility establish actual infallibility any more than it points to absolute delusion?!

In Conclusion

If Scripture does not inform the Roman Catholic magisterium about what Scripture has to say, then who or what does? To deny that the popes affirm the analogy of Scripture for the magisterium is to reduce Scripture to brute particulars that have no  discernible coherence, which would mean that the magisterium with respect to interpreting Scripture must be making things up as they go along and that any appeal to Scripture is disingenuous at best. Therefore, it’s not that Rome so much denies the intelligibility of Scripture. Rather, Rome would have us believe that Scripture is only intelligible to the magisterium. Consequently, individual Roman Catholics should not appeal to Scripture to justify the Roman Catholic communion and the church's need for the popes. Rather, Roman Catholics should be consistent by simply pointing to the authority of the popes to defend the claims of the popes. That, however, is an admission of being a blind follower of something other than Scripture, which is an embarrassment for Roman Catholics yet a necessary implication of their view of the church and Scripture.

As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture.

[rwa265]

Because there is only one man that we follow. FRoman Catholics can’t seem to get their mind around the fact we don’t have a corporate headquarters in Wittenberg with a CEO that parades around wearing Prada shoes.

---

I get that. You follow Jesus or a church that is loyal to Jesus. My problem is with your statement that Catholics, “even when challenged, refuse to cite anything from any ‘Protestant’ writing.” I do not know what you mean by that.

Can you provide an example of when a Catholic who, when challenged, could have or should have cited a “Protestant” writing when responding to that challenge?

[Springfield Reformer]

I follow the London Baptist Confession.  But remember what that means in an Evangelical context.  It doesn't mean we attach anathemas to those who don't share our exact same views on every detail. Most evangelicals however DO share a core unity on the five solas of the Reformation.  You won't get that by trying to catalog all things "Not Catholic" as Protestant. That is an irrational methodology.  There are always going to be looney toon outliers, both yours and ours, and they will consistently be grounded in a rejection of Scripture at some point.

Worse, in some cases you have massive defections from Scripture as the anchor, a full on rejection of Biblical supernaturalism, a falling away from Scripture that defines many of the main-liners.  That's why you will see us old school evangelicals constantly differentiating ourselves from these mainline fellowships.  Some of them even have pretty good confessions.  But life on the ground is that they don't believe their own confessions.  They believe what ever the latest fad is coming out of the liberal denominational seminaries. The Southern Baptists actually went through this, and for a period it seemed we might become as liberal as the Presbyterian Church USA.  But then we had a conservative, Biblicist revolt, and took back control of the seminaries. It made a remarkable difference at the congregational level. The undershepherds have to do their job or the flock will scatter.

As another example of this, with a different outcome, my dad took us out of the Methodist church when I was just a small child (a looong time ago).  We had had a long family history of being Methodist.  We even had some ancestors who were Methodist circuit rider preachers during the Great Awakening.  But one day, some newly minted seminarian was talking to my dad, and crushed a bible under his knee on the pew as he told my dad we didn't need that old book anymore. That was the end of it for dad.  We ended up in the Christian Missionary Alliance where Tozer was preacher, and stayed there many happy years. The word of God was honored there, and many souls came to know Christ as their living Savior.  

The upshot of all this is simple: You are going to have trouble getting where we are coming from until you realize that we really do see the word of God as the final authority, regardless of whatever lesser documents we may use for guidance and instruction.  In any system of authority, there must be a starting point.  When that starting point is some human organization, human corruption will take things off course.  Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly.  But always that is what will happen.  But when we trust God to keep score, to keep the core beliefs lined up among His children by the power of His word and His Spirit, we find that no matter how diverse our organizational history, where we trust and take God at His word, and put Him first in determining truth, we find a true unity of both belief and spirit among ourselves, a unity that defies all of Satan's attempts to disenfranchise us from the precious Gospel of Christ.  

Peace,

SR

[Resettozero]

Just posted by another FReeper that I hope will be read and believed by all Catholics posting here...

The upshot of all this is simple: You are going to have trouble getting where we are coming from until you realize that we really do see the word of God as the final authority, regardless of whatever lesser documents we may use for guidance and instruction. In any system of authority, there must be a starting point. When that starting point is some human organization, human corruption will take things off course. Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. But always that is what will happen. But when we trust God to keep score, to keep the core beliefs lined up among His children by the power of His word and His Spirit, we find that no matter how diverse our organizational history, where we trust and take God at His word, and put Him first in determining truth, we find a true unity of both belief and spirit among ourselves, a unity that defies all of Satan's attempts to disenfranchise us from the precious Gospel of Christ.

This really is the Spirit's leading for those non-Catholics on this board who are imperfect in their expressions, such as I. But this post above...is perfect.

Please read it and believe.

R2z

[Gamecock]

Can you provide an example of when a Catholic who, when challenged, could have or should have cited a “Protestant” writing when responding to that challenge?

I think you provided a nice litany of confessions and catechisms. Citing one of those would be a breath of fresh air over the constant barrage of anti-Protestant memes we are constantly exposed to.

(BTW, if you read them you might be surprised that there is a lot more unity than FRoman Catholics think.)

[Elsie]

I bought a mojodoll from an old Haitian lady that told me it would keep elephants from stampeding through my crops.

I’ve kept it in the barn window; overlooking the fields, and for nigh onto 15 years nary a single pachyderm has been even SEEN in my township!

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Then Scripture needs to be *interpreted* to make it say something it doesn’t say, to find a loophole.” <<

.
Precisely.

[RnMomof7]

Still waiting to see the list of verses and their official interpretations.

We will wait a long time..

[verga]

Still waiting to see the list of verses and their official interpretations.

We will wait a long time..

At some point you all are going to have to stop beating the dead horse of false witness.

I personally posted this to both of you about a month ago.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/are-catholics-free-to-interpret-bible-verses-without-the-churchs-approval

Full Question Are Catholics free to interpret Bible verses without the Church's approval?

Answer So far as the interpretations of individual scriptural passages go, keep in mind that the Church does not, as a rule, define how specific verses are to be taken. Instead, it defines doctrine, and that definition may eliminate some interpretations of particular verses. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma should answer most of your questions in these areas about the Church’s teaching office.

Only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially—but not fully—defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent (see "The Limits of Scriptural Interpretation" in the January 2001 issue of This Rock):

The reference to being "born of water and the Spirit" in John 3:5 includes the idea of baptism.

In telling the apostles, "Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.

In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus conferred on the apostles the power to forgive sins; everyone does not share this power.

Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.

The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained, not merely elder members of the Christian community.

At this point a Christian would admit their error. But we all know that there are only 2-3 non-Catholics that actually are Christians.

[Chicory]

Hi RnMomof7!
The reason I haven’t answered this question is that I have not yet finished my reply, having had a few other things to do today ;) So, yes, it may be that you will have to wait a long time, but only because I have an amazing amount of stuff to do this week and (of course) I chose this week to try to reform my disorganized self :o

[Chicory]

Let us say that Protestants interpret Scripture. They do this by considering Scripture itself, and coming up with ideas about what it means. (And let me say here, I know some super-incredible Protestants who love the Lord, and I in no way want to bash anyone, because how could I do that, knowing some of these terrific Protestant Christians? So please, if I write anything badly, please don’t take it in a bad way, because I don’t know much about how Protestants operate, so I might make a mistake.)

Here (http://www.baptisthistory.org/pamphlets/baptism.htm) in an article about baptism and the Baptists, it says, “Leaders like John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, and John Murton among the General Baptists in England **searched the New Testament and arrived at conclusions** about the true nature of the church,” so they seem to have considered what it says in the Bible and come to a determination of the meaning, which is what I am assuming Protestants mean when they talk about interpreting the Bible.

So now, let’s consider a Greek word which can be translated as either “repent” or “do penance.” I once looked this up in a Catholic Bible and in several Protestant bibles, and in the Catholic bible, every instance was translated “do penance,” and in the Protestant bibles, it was always translated “repent.”

The definition of “penance” is “voluntary self-punishment inflicts as an outward expression of repentance for having done wrong.” (This is from the first Google search response, which shows up on the list of links). The definition of “repent” from the same source is to “feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one’s wrongdoing or sin.” Merriam-Webster has “to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life.”

So you see that how the Catholics translate this Greek word and how the Protestants translate it differs and that this has had a great effect on the teachings of the two groups.

_____________________________________
Now let’s look at the history of the early Church and Scripture, as an **explanation** of what the Catholic Church teaches:

When considering the history of the early Church, we see that “Scripture” as we know it did not exist. When Christ referred to Scripture, He was referring to the Old Testament. At the beginning of the early Church, there were no “Christian” writings at all.

Everything that new Christians learned in those early times was the information transmitted from Christ through the Apostles, and then to their disciples. There were no writings to interpret—the information was what Christ had taught the Apostles.

As Christian leaders began to write (or be transcripted), certain individual documents were accepted as very important or inspired (the Gospels and the letters of St Paul), but there are records of texts later excluded from the canon of Scripture being accepted, and of course we know that the eventual Canon includes works which were neither a Gospel nor a letter of St Paul.

How were these various works evaluated? By their adherence to the teachings Christ had left with the Apostles and which had been handed down by the Apostles.

History shows us that the development of doctrine and of the teachings of Christianity in the early years did not proceed in the way these things happen now among Protestants. The early Christians did not search through a book to figure out what the Christian teachings were or should be, to discover, for example, the nature, effect, and proper procedure for baptism, because the writings to do that with did not yet exist.

What came first were the teachings. First the Apostles taught, then gradually some information was written down. There was a foundation of teaching which existed and which was transmitted to those who wanted to convert which existed before any “NT” writings at all.

Thus, the understanding of the word now translated as either “do penance” or “repent” (for example) in the early Church was based, **not** on the Bible, but on the teachings of Christ themselves. The early Christians understood the meaning of this word because an Apostle or the disciple of an Apostle explained it to them if they understood it in the wrong sense., and later, because the early Christians continued to pass on the teachings of Christ, we understood that what Christ wanted was more than repentance; He wanted penance from us as well.

Thus we can see that the Catholic Church does not interpret Scripture in the way that Protestants do. Instead, we have an understanding of Scripture based on the teachings which Christ gave to the Apostles, and which have been handed down to us, protected by the Holy Spirit. We understand what is meant by the ambiguous Greek word for do penance/repent, because of our teachings.

And so…. long, long ago you and others asked for a list of Scripture readings which had been “interpreted” by the Church. I hope that this little tome of mine explains why our list is so short.

[Chicory]

I inadvertently did not include your name as an addressee on my previous post. I think that your post shows the Protestant point of view about the source of authority, and I hope that my previous post (number 130) explains, in part, the Catholic view of the source of authority.

[editor-surveyor]

.
I guess that catholics are so bombarded with man made stuff that it is natural for them to assume that others are the same, but its not that way.

Protestants don’t interpret the Bible; we just read it and let the Holy Spirit tell us what we are seeing.

The more of the Bible you read, and the more often you read it, the easier it gets.

Paul told us that Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. That is a revelation of God’s plan for our education by one of the greatest students of all time.

Now lets look at your words. Repent and do penance are not even close to the same thing.

To repent is to truly hate and regret one’s sin, while doing penance is just doing rote mechanics demanded by another. doing penance is acting, pure and simple. It doesn’t require true repentance, any more than writing sentences on the blackboard.

Doing penance gets in the way of true repentance, and for no good purpose, since we cannot pay for our own sins. Doing penance is seeking righteousness through dead works.

When we actually confess and repent of our sins to the extent that we learn not to repeat that sin, it pleases God, and he writes that into our hearts so that we are assisted by the Holy Spirit to go forward without that sin.

Your assertion that the early worship was not based on the Bible could not be more false if you had deliberately set out to deceive us.

The Acts of the apostles, and the epistles of Paul make it plain that the early worship was solidly grounded in Torah. They kept the feasts diligently, and honored the Sabbath as though their lives depended on it. Just use an online concordance and search the names of the feasts, and the words Sabbath, Sabbaths, Commandments, ordinances, and you will see that that was the core of all worship.

The silly notion that the early believers worshiped on sunday was born out of misunderstanding one of the most beloved traditions followed by the early believers: Havdalah. That was the coming together on what we now call Saturday evening at sundown for potluck style dinners, and Bible study. “Saturday evening” as we know it was “The first day of the week” to the early christians. They went by God’s days, not Roman days.

You may recall that one of them fell out of an upper story window when he fell asleep during one of Paul’s long Havdalah sessions and had to be resurrected.
.

[Chicory]

****…Protestants don’t interpret the Bible; we just read it and let the Holy Spirit tell us what we are seeing.****
I am sorry, I misunderstood that. Can you tell me why the Holy Spirit tells Protestants different things?

___________________________
****Paul told us that Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. That is a revelation of God’s plan for our education by one of the greatest students of all time.****
And Christ told the Apostles to teach, which would involve hearing.

___________________________
****Now lets look at your words. Repent and do penance are not even close to the same thing….****
I was using that one difference as an example, not as a starting point for discussion, so I will comment only briefly. For Catholics, to do penance is a natural outcome of our realization that we have offended God, and our desire to contribute in some tiny way to the repair of the harm we have caused, for which Christ paid such a heavy price. We want to join ourselves in the small way that we are capable of with Him in that endeavor. We are in no way trying to insincerely get away with a lesser reaction to our sin; we just have a different understanding of how to express that sorrow.

____________________________
****Your assertion that the early worship was not based on the Bible could not be more false if you had deliberately set out to deceive us….****
I am sorry: I should have been more clear that I was referring only to the New Testament writings when I discussed the teachings of the early Church. Of course the Apostles had the Old Testament.

[metmom]

When considering the history of the early Church, we see that “Scripture” as we know it did not exist. When Christ referred to Scripture, He was referring to the Old Testament. At the beginning of the early Church, there were no “Christian” writings at all.

Everything that new Christians learned in those early times was the information transmitted from Christ through the Apostles, and then to their disciples. There were no writings to interpret—the information was what Christ had taught the Apostles.

Sigh.....

Most of the NT was written by the apostles themselves. And the letters were circulated to the churches as Paul instructed.

Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture before he died.

bb has the best grasp on the early writings of the church.

[metmom]

My goodness. The RCC has had 2,000 YEARS to write interpretations of the Bible.

They sure had enough time to write out that list of anathemas for anyone who disagreed with them.

[metmom]

Scripture is easy enough to deal with.

You read it and obey it.

that alone is enough to keep a person busy for a lifetime.....

And if you don’t understand something, ask the Holy Spirit to show you what it means. He WILL do it.

[Iscool]

I’ve kept it in the barn window; overlooking the fields, and for nigh onto 15 years nary a single pachyderm has been even SEEN in my township!

I don't know if I believe that stuff...I've been asking St. Alfonso for 2 weeks to find my car keys for me...So far he has failed...

[Iscool]

So now, let’s consider a Greek word which can be translated as either “repent” or “do penance.” I once looked this up in a Catholic Bible and in several Protestant bibles, and in the Catholic bible, every instance was translated “do penance,” and in the Protestant bibles, it was always translated “repent.”

No it can't be...

μετανοέω
metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.

You can't get penance out of that...

When considering the history of the early Church, we see that “Scripture” as we know it did not exist. When Christ referred to Scripture, He was referring to the Old Testament. At the beginning of the early Church, there were no “Christian” writings at all.

Completely untrue...Plenty of the Old Testament writings were Christian writings...

Jesus constantly referred to O.T. scripture that revealed himself in the N.T....Jesus referenced many prophecies in the O.T.

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

The Eunuch of Acts got saved by hearing Old Testament scripture only...

Everything that new Christians learned in those early times was the information transmitted from Christ through the Apostles, and then to their disciples. There were no writings to interpret—the information was what Christ had taught the Apostle

And then it was transferred to writing...Exactly as this verse projects...

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Whether they heard it being taught and then later when it was committed to paper, to read...

Thus, the understanding of the word now translated as either “do penance” or “repent” (for example) in the early Church was based, **not** on the Bible, but on the teachings of Christ themselves. The early Christians understood the meaning of this word because an Apostle or the disciple of an Apostle explained it to them if they understood it in the wrong sense.

Pure, unbiblical conjecture, based on NOTHING...

Thus we can see that the Catholic Church does not interpret Scripture in the way that Protestants do. Instead, we have an understanding of Scripture based on the teachings which Christ gave to the Apostles, and which have been handed down to us, protected by the Holy Spirit.

Oh what nonsense...The apostles did not hand anything down to the Catholic religion other than what is recorded in scripture...

We understand what is meant by the ambiguous Greek word for do penance/repent, because of our teachings.

The word is not ambiguous and your statement is telling...You invent a doctrine and then you invent a new definition of a word to support your doctrine...

[Iscool]

To repent is to truly hate and regret one’s sin, while doing penance is just doing rote mechanics demanded by another. doing penance is acting, pure and simple. It doesn’t require true repentance, any more than writing sentences on the blackboard.

Doing penance gets in the way of true repentance, and for no good purpose, since we cannot pay for our own sins. Doing penance is seeking righteousness through dead works.

Exactly...Penance does not require remorse...Penance does not require love...

[Iscool]

****…Protestants don’t interpret the Bible; we just read it and let the Holy Spirit tell us what we are seeing.****

I am sorry, I misunderstood that. Can you tell me why the Holy Spirit tells Protestants different things?

That's another easy one...The Holy Spirit teaches truth...Not all people accept or believe that truth...

God says the bible is meat and milk...A new Christian gets fed milk...The seasoned Christian graduates to strong meat...With millions of Christians in between...

If you don't accept the milk of the word, God will never give you any meat...As a result many Christian when they can't get beyond a certain point, will come up with their own interpretation instead of God's...

The same thing happens in your religion except that we use God's word, the bible as our standard where you guys use man's failed wisdom as your standard...